Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darshan Kumar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Kumar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted on CSD grounds and restored at an editor's request, however I maintain that there is no asserted notability in the article. Its up to the community now to decide what to do with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article clearly asserts notability under NACTOR, as the subject not only appears in but plays a principal role in two notable films. The article also references a profile of the subject in The Hindu, one of the largest English-language newspapers in India, with a reported circulation in the millions. A prima facie case for notability has been made, and no substantive refutation has been advanced or even attempted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. One role in Mary Kom (2014), but nothing else. He reportedly had one marginal role in Aśoka (2001 film), according to some unreliable sources, but is not mentioned in corresponding Wikipedia article at all. NH10, "his first film", has not been released yet! IMDB does not know, if his name is spelled Darshan Kumaar or Darshan Kumar. It is irrelevant what The Hindu wrote: newspapers write about non-notable subjects all the time. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC÷)
Delete per Jni Bazj (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject has received "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources" and therefore meet the WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard and merits a Wikipedia article, such as, Indian Express, Indian Express 2, Indian Express 3, Indian Express 4, Indian Express 5, IBN Live, IBN Live 2, Time of India, Times of India 2, The Hindu, The Hindu 2, DNA India, IndiaWest, Free Press Journal, India Times, etc.

There are actually as many as one would like to have to write a start or c class article. Do we need anything else beside the sources found above to keep this article? I request nominator and everyone reading this to check WP:INDAFD before nominating Indian related articles for deletion. I found these sources simply using 'google custom search engine' linked on there ([1]). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check INDAFD because I was unaware of it's existence. When I was requested to undelete the article I moved it back and filed this afd almost immediately because so many different variations of notability and significance seem to exist on here these days that its almost impossible to track and analyze each article from all points of its given notability or significance. Its easier then to simply list here so the community can debate its notability and significance merits, which in turn helps sort out where the claimed notability and significance comes from. In fairness, in this particular case, if there are so many sources I would wonder why the article hasn't been expanded more. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and it does take time. The subject simply failed to attract attention of Wikipedia editors interested in Indian film related articles. I find two lines written under "What to do" section of WP:SEP quite interesting in present scenrio. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anupmehra. War wizard90 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability criteria, as he has had significant coverages in multiple RS (please see the above post by Anupmehra for details). --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Upon a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC, albeit in a somewhat weak manner. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.